Swarovision 8X32...SE death knell (1 Viewer)

Stephen, no problem! Two key areas i think well three, one is contrast the wb el displays whites as white as could be i didn't feel it was bettered by the sv, two apparent sharpness to the image i couldn't read any further down the chart with the sv over the wb, this is center field sharpness mind you!!! And yes the sv trumps the wb with the sharper flatter edges! Three is ergonomics though i like the feel of the full body armor i like the chunkier barrels of the wb a toss up to me! Like i said at the time i didn't feel the need to switch! I had other optics of a higher priority at the time! I'm still considering getting the sv, partly because i could still get a good price for my wb! Bryce...

stereotruckdriver said:

Stephen, no problem! Two key areas i think well three, one is contrast the wb el displays whites as white as could be i didn't feel it was bettered by the sv, two apparent sharpness to the image i couldn't read any further down the chart with the sv over the wb, this is center field sharpness mind you!!! And yes the sv trumps the wb with the sharper flatter edges! Three is ergonomics though i like the feel of the full body armor i like the chunkier barrels of the wb a toss up to me! Like i said at the time i didn't feel the need to switch! I had other optics of a higher priority at the time! I'm still considering getting the sv, partly because i could still get a good price for my wb! Bryce...

Click to expand...

Bryce,

Thanks for that 8x32 WB vs. SV comparo, that's what I was looking for. As I wrote earlier, I wish they just added the ED glass to lower the CA, which is more obvious in WF bins. The edges are sharp enough for me in the WB. Hey, I"m a poet and don't know it.

I guess Swaro was feeling the competition from Nikon (enough to threaten them with a lawsuit over the EDG I) so they stretched the EDGes with the SV EL design, but not with the same balance of AMD and pincushion as the EDG. Well, no matter, if I can live with the CA in the 8xEII, I can live with the CA in the 8x EL WB. Perhaps we will see some good deals next year on WB refurbs that were traded-in on the SV ELs.

<B>

brocknroller said:

Bryce,

Thanks for that 8x32 WB vs. SV comparo, that's what I was looking for. As I wrote earlier, I wish they just added the ED glass to lower the CA, which is more obvious in WF bins. The edges are sharp enough for me in the WB. Hey, I"m a poet and don't know it.

I guess Swaro was feeling the competition from Nikon (enough to threaten them with a lawsuit over the EDG I) so they stretched the EDGes with the SV EL design, but not with the same balance of AMD and pincushion as the EDG. Well, no matter, if I can live with the CA in the 8xEII, I can live with the CA in the 8x EL WB. Perhaps we will see some good deals next year on WB refurbs that were traded-in on the SV ELs.

<B>

Click to expand...

Brock, i'm easily bothered with CA! I don't find it troublesome or a bother with the wb! And i believe that there will be deals on the wb, maybe even mine!!! Bryce...

I saw it in the 8x32 EL but mostly along the edges. One of the reasons I probably noticed it though was because I had the 8x32 FL at the same time. Other than that one issue I loved the original 8x32 EL.

Frank, didn't mean to distort what you said, but I believe all the present Nikon EXs are as sharp in the centre as the older 7x35 (though the sweet spot, as you say, is smaller). Unfortunatley, the older models won't do for me because (a) more eye relief is needed for eyeglasses, and (b) effective waterproofing against fungus is vital in this part of the world, which is why I kept harping on this about the Swaro. Sv. also

stephen b said:

Both you and your "DVD" test are a legend- but only in your mind!

Sorry- the 8x32 SV is a better all around binocular than either the SE or the EDG. As far the Nikon's go and the optical view that I prefer - I give the nod to the SE.

But, they both fall behind to the sum optical qualities of the SV. And I am not blind, nor am I influenced by any money spent. And, I spent a lot of time comparing all three.

Cheers. B

Click to expand...

The issue is moot... since it is not 7x it can only be a flawed binocular at best...

B

Stepping aside, waving the 7x banner, and awaiting the onslaught...

CG

Pileatus said:

And it has sharp edges and no noticeable "rolling ball".

Click to expand...

Pileatus, I haven't had a chance to try the new EL 8x32 SV, but I have tried the 8x42 and 10x42 EL SV's, and I did notice the "rolling ball effect." I found it quite noticeable and uncomfortable.

I'm wondering if you experienced this phenomenon with the 42mm's but not with the 8x32?

I'm an 8x32 guy (I use and Ultravid BR) but would always like something "better."

The Swaro's seem like an amazing glass...

cycleguy said:

The issue is moot... since it is not 7x it can only be a flawed binocular at best...

B

Stepping aside, waving the 7x banner, and awaiting the onslaught...

CG

Click to expand...

I actually agree... I had the old Swaro 7x30 SLC... what a great bin!

If Leica or Swaro made a 7x32 I'd be an owner yesterday!

pompadour said:

Frank, didn't mean to distort what you said, but I believe all the present Nikon EXs are as sharp in the centre as the older 7x35 (though the sweet spot, as you say, is smaller). Unfortunatley, the older models won't do for me because (a) more eye relief is needed for eyeglasses, and (b) effective waterproofing against fungus is vital in this part of the world, which is why I kept harping on this about the Swaro. Sv. also

Click to expand...

Pomp,

I will have to get my hands on an EX and do a direct comparison though I certainly don't doubt your word.

What is the lowest price someone here paid for the 8x32 SV ? I've seen a new one on the bay going for $1700...any lower price anywhere else ?

I missed it, but apparently a like-new 8x32 Traveler went for something like $1235 on Ebay in Septmember!!

How? Why? I don't know. I kicked myself for that one.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Swarovski-EL-SWAROVISION-8x32-Binoculars-/261101223785?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3ccad87f69&nma=true&si=u5GEnstxI16uMmLhIGvqNwUnt5E%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Mark

Mac308 said:

Pileatus, I haven't had a chance to try the new EL 8x32 SV, but I have tried the 8x42 and 10x42 EL SV's, and I did notice the "rolling ball effect." I found it quite noticeable and uncomfortable.

I'm wondering if you experienced this phenomenon with the 42mm's but not with the 8x32?

I'm an 8x32 guy (I use and Ultravid BR) but would always like something "better."

The Swaro's seem like an amazing glass...

Click to expand...

FYI Nikon's HG L/LX L (now known as Premier) had a "rolling ball" problem with their 8/10 x 42mm binoculars but not with the 8/10 x 32 versions.

Maybe the Swaro 8 x 32 will be the same?

Bob

ceasar said:

FYI Nikon's HG L/LX L (now known as Premier) had a "rolling ball" problem with their 8/10 x 42mm binoculars but not with the 8/10 x 32 versions.

Maybe the Swaro 8 x 32 will be the same?

Bob

Click to expand...

As Gijs might say, it's not a problem, it's a "consequence".

Or as Yogi might say, "It's only a problem if it's a problem".

One BF member found "rolling ball" in the 8x32 model, so much so that it made him nauseous. Having tried the full sized models and the 8x32, I found the level of "rolling ball" in the midsized model acceptable. A small bit of "roll" but not nearly as severe as in the full sized models, at least to my eyes. Even the 8x32 SE has a small bit of "roll". If I pan at just the right speed, I can induce it. But there's tolerable and then there's "fish eye lens".

As to "rolling ball" in the 8x32 SV, even the recalcitrant Black Knight admitted that he saw less AMD in the midsized model than the full sized. At least a couple others have concurred.

According to expert photographic proof, both the full sized and midsized models display the same compound distortion pattern, and Frank D.'s field test concurred (word of the day).

So how do we explain this discrepancy? Since "rolling ball" is a perceptual (not "psychological") issue that varies among individuals, whereas the distortion pattern does not change, I would be inclined to conclude that the difference is in the eye of the beholder.

But perhaps there is also an objective reason for this? Just as pincushion becomes noticeably worse toward the edges, the wider the FOV, the farther in the periphery the user will find "Cupid's Bow" (pincushion at the edges) or the "Waxing Crescent Moon" (AMD at the edges). IOW, the farther from the center you go, the more severe the effect of either "rolling ball" or "rolling bowl".

So perhaps the larger FOV of the 8x32 model helps lessen the perception of "rolling ball" by putting the worst "edge effects" farther out (at least in some individuals who are not extra sensitive to RB). Just a working theory.

I'd never spend $2K on a single bin, so it's a "mute" point for me no matter what I discover when I compare the big and baby SV ELs myself, but I'd still like to see what all the hubbub is about. Even though the full sized LXs showed severe RB to my eyes, they also showed the best contrast and color saturation I have ever seen in a bin. So much so, that I bought a second sample10x42, hoping that I would eventually adjust to the RB. Never did even after a month.

If I ever find that I just can't "get by" with my SEs and EIIs (pretty hard to justify even the cost of a "WB" unless it's a demo or refurb if you're a fair weather birder on a budget), then a WB it will be (if I can find one with a smooth two-way focuser). Don't really need it, though. Of course, I could say that of all my bins. Would I miss any details if my primary bins were $150 8x40 Action EXs instead of $550 8x32 SEs? Maybe a bit in the most critical situations, but I'm not going for a "Big Year" so it's of little "consequence" (word of the month). As I mentioned, last year, the birder who made the most IDs at "The Big Sit" during migration had a $200 Pentax 8x36 NV. The others, who had Swaro ELs and SLCs, didn't have nearly as many IDs as this guy, who could ID birds by song and then confirm the ID with his bins. Birding involves a lot of more than having "the best" bin. That's just "icing".

<B>

Brock, don't know if you caught this in another thread but one of my customers quoted someone, maybe even someone from this sight, as saying about the SVs "If I was paying for rolling ball, I'd ask for my money back."

Mac308 said:

I actually agree... I had the old Swaro 7x30 SLC... what a great bin!

If Leica or Swaro made a 7x32 I'd be an owner yesterday!

Click to expand...

Agreed with both statements. Along with my 8x32 Swaro SV, I still have a 7x30 SLC (1999 made) that is a fine piece of glass. It is very crisp and sharp; and although it has a narrower FOV than the 8x30 SLC, it has a much flatter edge to edge performance than the comparable 8x30 SLC's that I have tested it against. The 7x30 SLC must have (obviously it does) a different EP design that gives it a flatter edge to edge performance over the 8x30. When I compared the edge performance of the 7x30 SLC to the 8x32 Swaro SV; the 8x32 Nikon SE; and the 8x32 Nikon EDG- I could not believe how well the edge performance was in the SLC. It must have been designed with great edge performance before edge performance was in. Kind of like- "I was country, when country wasn't cool"

As to the part about a top notch updated Alpha 7x30 or 7x32- I would be, or would have been all over that.

If when I purchased my 8x32 SV, I had also been offered an option of a 7x32 SV, I know that the 7x would have been the one I would have chosen. Back when I first purchased a 7x30 SLC, I had the option of buying the 8x30 SLC. I knew I wanted the 30mm size over the 42's at the time, and I thought long and hard deciding prior to purchase between the 7x30 and the 8x30. After deciding on the 7x, I then and over time could not have been happier with my choice.

But..... it does not matter, this is a merely a futile discussion between a small sect of binocular aficionados (or nut jobs) - I do not believe we will see a top notch 7x30/32 from the big boys again. They do not sell well (that is at least what a Swaro rep told me concerning them dropping the 7x30 SLC in 2001, or 02)- it is just not what the masses want.

brocknroller said:

...
One BF member found "rolling ball" in the 8x32 model, so much so that it made him nauseous. Having tried the full sized models and the 8x32, I found the level of "rolling ball" in the midsized model acceptable. A small bit of "roll" but not nearly as severe as in the full sized models, at least to my eyes. Even the 8x32 SE has a small bit of "roll". If I pan at just the right speed, I can induce it. But there's tolerable and then there's "fish eye lens".

As to "rolling ball" in the 8x32 SV, even the recalcitrant Black Knight admitted that he saw less AMD in the midsized model than the full sized. At least a couple others have concurred.

...

I'd never spend $2K on a single bin, so it's a "mute" point for me no matter what I discover when I compare the big and baby SV ELs myself, but I'd still like to see what all the hubbub is about. Even though the full sized LXs showed severe RB to my eyes, they also showed the best contrast and color saturation I have ever seen in a bin. So much so, that I bought a second sample10x42, hoping that I would eventually adjust to the RB. Never did even after a month.

...

<B>

Click to expand...

Brock, so you've finally looked through them or not?? You suggest you have, then take it back. I guess you haven't. We'd never have heard the end of it.

Anyone who gets "nauseous" looking through a 32mm SV needs to see a neurologist. Somethin' ain't right there. Does he need Dramamine to take his boots off? Seriously, I'm not buying it.

Conversely, anyone who finds the 32mm "acceptable" and the 42mm a "fish-eye lens" needs to see a psychologist because the difference is darn near imperceptible. I see a tiny difference, and I'll try to use them both enough to articulate it, (too busy for now--blech!) but so far about all I can say is that there is a tiny difference. The 32mm has a bit more pincushion until the reversal, but the transition back to zero looks about the same. At the edge, zero pin, zero barrel.

And yes, you owe it to yourself (and everyone else) to look through the SV's and see what all the hubbub is about.

Mark

proudpapa56 said:

Brock, don't know if you caught this in another thread but one of my customers quoted someone, maybe even someone from this sight, as saying about the SVs "If I was paying for rolling ball, I'd ask for my money back."

Click to expand...

PP.

That quote certainly wasn't from me, I'd never write "If I was... I'd write "If I were" and use proper grammar!

No, seriously, I never said that. Sounds more like a dennis hyperbole.

I have always made it clear that we "rolling ballers' are in in the minority, but I have advised people who were asking about "rolling ball" and who weren't sure whether or not they'd be bothered by it, to make sure they either try before they buy or to buy from a store with an ample return period because not everybody adapts to RB quickly, some take days or a week, one member took two weeks, but that's rare.

So you need to give it time rather than quickly dismiss an otherwise excellent bin like the SV EL, Nikon Premier or Kowa Genesis because at first glace you see RB. I think I've been consistent in making that very clear.

Even experts have pointed out RB in their reviews such as Peirgiovanni from binomania and Holger in his reviews, mostly recently in his reviews of 11 midsized bins in which he warned about "rolling ball" in the 8x32 EDG, which I wasn't even aware was an issue.

The main reason I caution members who post queries about RB on these forums is to counteract certain people on here who keep insisting that "rolling ball" is a "non-issue" with the SV EL, or that it's "psychological," "ex nihilo," etc. simply because they can't imagine that anyone could possibly see something different than they do. Such comments misinform readers. "Rolling ball" or "the globe effect" and it's relation to low distortion in optics has been well documented.

I think you should be more concerned about those who keep denying that the compound distortion in the SV EL can create RB for some users and would rather people remain in ignorance by dismissing RB as a "non-issue". At least going in, if your buyers knew there's a chance they will see it, knew what it was, and realized that most people adjust to it with time, you won't get someone looking through an SV EL, seeing a "strange motion" when they pan and then handing the bins back to you and saying they don't like them.

A good example of how this can hurt a buyer was dennis' comments when he responded to another member who was concerned about RB in the 8.5x SV EL, by telling him RB was a "non-issue, don't worry about it". A month or so later, he sold the EL and said the main reason was the "RB was starting to get to me".

Given the glowing reviews the SV ELs have garnered from both reviewers and owners, they are worth checking out even if you suspect you are susceptible to RB. I even conceded that the 8x32 SV EL might be the new "King" of midsized bins, based on reviews and my experience with the WB model.

If one of your buyers took advice from a member on here who said, "If I was paying for rolling ball, I'd ask for my money back," he apparently had not done his homework to check out the trustworthiness of the person who made that comment. Statements like that are as misleading as those that dismiss RB as a "non-issue".

<B>

Hello Brock,

I would like to point out, that some people never experience "rolling ball" because they do not pan, or pan very slowly. A few bird watchers, actually look over an area with the naked eye; train their binoculars on the area; then move to another area, again, with the naked eye. You won't see the globe effect doing that.
I have never noticed rolling ball with either Leica, Nikon or Zeiss binoculars.
Happy bird watching,

Arthur :hi:

I'm not sure about it's accuracy, but the story I read somewhere was that Zeiss introduced pincushion distortion into their models in the 1940s in response to complaints from users (mostly military) about the 'globe effect' when panning. It was subsequently adopted by the majority of manufacturers.

As for the Swaros, I find the magnification distortion of the EL SV 8.5x42 quite disconcerting to use, though I have to work quite hard to see a rolling ball. I generally don't like it. For some reason, while I could see the same phenomenon on the 8x32, I found it more tolerable. I've not spent much time with either so couldn't say if it's something I could get used to.

Curiously, the more complex distortion I see on models like the Hawke Frontier ED and Sapphire models (cousins of the Zen Rays) I find much more unacceptable.

David

stephen b said:

Agreed with both statements. Along with my 8x32 Swaro SV, I still have a 7x30 SLC (1999 made) that is a fine piece of glass. It is very crisp and sharp; and although it has a narrower FOV than the 8x30 SLC, it has a much flatter edge to edge performance than the comparable 8x30 SLC's that I have tested it against. The 7x30 SLC must have (obviously it does) a different EP design that gives it a flatter edge to edge performance over the 8x30. When I compared the edge performance of the 7x30 SLC to the 8x32 Swaro SV; the 8x32 Nikon SE; and the 8x32 Nikon EDG- I could not believe how well the edge performance was in the SLC. It must have been designed with great edge performance before edge performance was in. Kind of like- "I was country, when country wasn't cool"

As to the part about a top notch updated Alpha 7x30 or 7x32- I would be, or would have been all over that.

If when I purchased my 8x32 SV, I had also been offered an option of a 7x32 SV, I know that the 7x would have been the one I would have chosen. Back when I first purchased a 7x30 SLC, I had the option of buying the 8x30 SLC. I knew I wanted the 30mm size over the 42's at the time, and I thought long and hard deciding prior to purchase between the 7x30 and the 8x30. After deciding on the 7x, I then and over time could not have been happier with my choice.

But..... it does not matter, this is a merely a futile discussion between a small sect of binocular aficionados (or nut jobs) - I do not believe we will see a top notch 7x30/32 from the big boys again. They do not sell well (that is at least what a Swaro rep told me concerning them dropping the 7x30 SLC in 2001, or 02)- it is just not what the masses want.

Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment of the 7x30 SLC... I got mine new in 1997. It still holds up quite well to today's bins. I also had an 8x30 SLC circa 2004, but far away preferred the 7x30 and got rid of the 8x30. Also had a Leica 8x32 BN, and settled eventually on the Ultravid BR in 2006, and it remains so to this day.

I briefly had a Zeiss FL (for a week) but I couldn't stand the fast focus and it didn't hold up as well as the Leica BR on the USAF chart. The supposed "brightness" of the FL isn't natural to me and at dawn and dusk is the same as the Leica. The FL's, for me, are an over-hyped bin, but mine was just a sample of one.

Yes, 7x30/32/35 bins aren't popular. Most are brainwashed in favor of power. Tis' a pity as, like you, if a 7x32 were offered by Swaro or Leica I'd be all over them. But you and I are in the minority. Apparently Swaro and Leica are in business to make money. Shocking really.|=)|